Technology as Prosthesis

While reading Replaceable You: Engineering the Body in Postwar America for my Methods class, I came across an interesting passage about the attempt to analogize cybercultures and 21st century technological advances as "prosthesis." This trope in academic work has always bothered me, but I was never really able to identify it as problematic. Here is the passage:

In these works, a prosthesis can refer to any machine or technology that intervenes in human subjectivity, such as a telephone, a computer, or a sexual device. As a result, the prosthesis is regularly abstracted as a postmodern tool or artifact, a symbol that reductively dematerializes the human body (...) Despite ubiquitous representations of prostheses or cyborgs in late twentieth and early twenty-first century culture, they hardly begin to understand the complex historical and technological origins of the body-machine interface (...) They also fail to give agency to the people who use prosthetic technology every day without glamour or fanfare.

First of all, I would argue that technology does not intervene in the sense of interference, but rather mediates human subjectivity. It feels patronizing to hear academics say that the use of a technological apparatus to produce or communicate somehow diminishes or subordinates "true" human subjectivity. Technology does not turn us into supermen or cyborgs because it is often used in the attempt to achieve some sort of idealized notion of normalcy, much like the use of prostheses. Perhaps instead of intervening on our subjectivity or humanity, technology becomes a support for it.